Comments (82)

David wrote on March 22, 2007 11:48 AM:

And what is the roll call tally - names, please.

gcs wrote on March 22, 2007 11:50 AM:

Finally, someone in the Senate man enough to stare down those arrogant bastards in the WH and speak the truth for once. Next to Leahy Specter came off like a sniveling coward.

Dreggas wrote on March 22, 2007 11:50 AM:

It was a voice vote but by the sounds of it (was listening on CSpan radio) only two voted nay and from the deliberations the two were Sessions and Brownback but I can't be certain.

Dennis wrote on March 22, 2007 11:53 AM:

Once again we see Arlen Specter doing his damndest to shield for George W. Bush.

It was from Areln Specter's office that the provision to excape congresional confirmation for all attorney generals was born, and "sneaked" into the so-called "Patriot Act(s) in the first place.

And now he wants to accept Bush's offer of "private, behind the doors, no written records".

Nuts! Senator. Nuts!

Arlen Specter is no more innocent than Roberto Gonzales.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Arkansan wrote on March 22, 2007 11:55 AM:

It was a voice vote, but Sen. Grassley made a point that the record was to reflect his “aye” vote. While I was watching, no Republican requested the record reflect his “no” vote.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 22, 2007 11:56 AM:

Woo-Hoo again . . .

Inquiry: Does the Christian Book of the Dead come in an asbestos paged, nomex covered version?

Ron Byers wrote on March 22, 2007 11:57 AM:

Dennis, I love the passion, but the AG's name is Alberto.

Varangian wrote on March 22, 2007 11:59 AM:

Dennis @ 11:53:
"Arlen Specter is no more innocent than Roberto Gonzales."

I'll second that. Hatch too has had a role in this that has yet to come out. There seemed to be a lot of competition for the USA position in Utah, both Specter's staff guy and Sampson wanted it.

I've got 5 bucks that says there's more to that part of the story than we've found out yet...just like all the rest of it.

kentuck wrote on March 22, 2007 12:00 PM:

Arlen Specter seems to be running scared? What is he hiding? Is he involved in the USA scandal also? Well, he did put that little loophole into the Patriot Act, didn't he?

What will be the next move for the White House? Do they attempt another "compromise", such as, OK, we'll allow transcripts but not under oath?

Please Jesus, let Leahy stick to his guns.

Dave Manning wrote on March 22, 2007 12:00 PM:

So the committees have to reconcile their subpoenas before they're issued? And when will Lieberman switch parties to try and stop this process?

Arkansan wrote on March 22, 2007 12:03 PM:

Let me clarify that, some Republican senators did audibly vote no, but not many. The “ayes” were much more vocal, and as I said, at least one Republican voted yes.

The talking point on the vote during the hearing was that the vote was “premature.” The Republicans also lamely argued that the debate is just the same old partisan politics that the public is sick of, according to them the committee and congress has priorities that are more important. Specter, Kyle and those you’d expect spewed that nonsense, but not even they seemed to believe it.

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on March 22, 2007 12:03 PM:

Kudos, Mr. Leahy. Let the metaphorical water-boarding of these craven traitors begin.

Following on from nothing, nothing, nothing - impeach, impeach, impeach!

John Drake wrote on March 22, 2007 12:04 PM:

Go Sen. Leahy! If they back down, the will get a Bush/Cheney Redux meeting where C held B's hand and told him what to say, what to lie, what to withhold. The American people get less than nothing. Call Bush's bluff - and force the subpoena issue. Guarantee that Bush will fold, Gonzales will get his head offered to the public on a plate to shut down Rove's testimony under oath. But then the Senate committee needs to go for the jugular - and keep after Rove and sink his sorry fat ass into oblivion. Cut the head off the snake in Washington.

cfaller96 wrote on March 22, 2007 12:04 PM:

Let's note something about Arlen Specter here. In the video, he was arguing (paraphrasing) "why don't we just take what we can get now, and we can always subpoena them later if we don't like what they give us?"

Somewhat compelling, but flatly untrue. One of the little known provisions in the WH offer was "no subsequent subpoenas." The headlines were all about 'not under oath, no transcript, behind closed doors, etc.' but let's not forget that if Dems agreed to the WH offer, they would not be able to call Rove et al back under subpoena.

Arlen is either lying or stupid. Again.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 12:06 PM:

Even David Brooks who is on GOP LSD is critical of Bush today:

"...The president says he will allow White House staff to appear before Congress, but not in public, not under oath and not with a transcript. The president apparently expects his supporters to rally behind the sacred cause of No Transcript. In time of war, he's decided to expend political capital so that his staffers can lie to Congress without legal consequences..."

From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 22, 2007 12:08 PM:

Glad to see a few Senators grew a sack. Bravo Senator Leahy!

Arkansan wrote on March 22, 2007 12:09 PM:

As I understand it, the subpoenas were issued independently by each chamber for their own purposes. Reconciliation is unnecessary.

As for Lieberman, it may not be possible for him to help the Republicans much during this session. They way the rules have been written this time, the Democrats will retain the Chairs regardless of a switch in the majority. If that’s true, Lieberman will stay a Democrat because, for now, there is no advantage in it for him to swim to that sinking ship. When, or if, he could damage the Democrats in a fundamental way with a switch, he’ll do it.

kentuck wrote on March 22, 2007 12:11 PM:

Could it be that several Senators are tied up in this US Atty scandal also? Is that why Specter and Kyl were so adamantly opposed to the subpoenas today? Could it be that they were working behind the curtains with this White House to get rid of Lam and the others in an effort to save their own hides and the hides of their comrades?? Don't bet against it.

Redshift wrote on March 22, 2007 12:12 PM:

"So the committees have to reconcile their subpoenas before they're issued?"

No, it's not legislation, so it doesn't have to go through both houses. They're independent subpoenas to appear before two separate committees, one in the House and one in the Senate.

If they defy the subpoenas, however, it will take a vote of the full chamber to declare them in contempt of Congress and take it to the courts.

Jamie wrote on March 22, 2007 12:16 PM:

MAkes you wonder -- is Big Dick now kicking himself for telling Leahy to go f**k himself on the floor of the Senate? What goes around comes around.

Punchy wrote on March 22, 2007 12:16 PM:

Anyone else nervous as all hell about what these "compromises" will be? Oath, but not in public is what I'm thinking. Please....PLEASE Leahy stick to your guns. Does ANYONE think the R's would compromise in this situation?

Show strength. Lots of it. Show these bastards they're not the bullies they think they are.

David wrote on March 22, 2007 12:17 PM:

Let's all keep our eyes on the ball. The link in WH to Cheney and Cunningham misdeeds is on the table here. Also, let's keep our focus on the fact of surging to war without end vs purging to protect some senior behinds in the WH. Anybody still thinking about Walter Reed signal of Administration's trashing of the troops?

Propagandee wrote on March 22, 2007 12:20 PM:

Senator Sucker Punch (R-PA).

His usual pattern of appearing tough then at the last minute switching to Administration boot licker.

Ugh.

Sholom wrote on March 22, 2007 12:20 PM:

Tangent:

"Hatch too has had a role in this that has yet to come out. There seemed to be a lot of competition for the USA position in Utah, both Specter's staff guy and Sampson wanted it."

I'm skeptical that Hatch is involved in anything underhanded here. Spector's staff guy (Tolman) was simply a committee holdover from when Hatch ran the committee. Hatch wanted him as USA-Utah. Sampson pushed for his own appointment from within DOJ (and got support from DOJ and WH). Finally, WH backed down and let Hatch have his way. I think Hatch was simply pushing a fellow conservative Utahn for a plum position (and Sampson, also from Utah, wanted it for himself).

(does TPM know something I don't? Security code: "snake")

epv wrote on March 22, 2007 12:23 PM:

Watch for Cheney to pull some stunt...

Keep the pressure on Congress to issue subpoenas demanding testimony by Rove, Miers, Gonzales, et. al. under oath; in public; and, with transcripts-- and not to cave-into the neo-con Bushies bully-boy tactics.

They should call Bush's bluff-- and, also start the campaign to make it clear to the American people that in the event that Cheney bribes Scalia-Thomas-Alito-etc. with duck hunting trips and other junkets, that they will put the heat on...

It's time to stop the Bush administration's arrogant, wanton & traitorous abuse of power! In fact, it's time for impeachment hearings to commence-- and, I don't understand why Bush & Cheney haven't already faced indictment for their myriad criminal activities.

[Oh yes-- how was the vote split amongst the Congress-perons?]

Carl Nyberg wrote on March 22, 2007 12:24 PM:

If the White House doesn't want the interviews recorded I think that's OK under one condition.

I remember Glenn Greenwald wrote about the FBI not wanting to videotape interrogations. So, on it's face the Bush administration position seems consistent.

So, I'm OK with having private meetings without transcripts if the Bush administration and the Republicans are OK with agreeing not to contest the Democrats notes and interpretations on the interviews.

Sholom wrote on March 22, 2007 12:27 PM:

One clarification: my understanding (no guarantees if this is correct): if they defy the subpoenas, the US Attorney for the DC District has to prosecute it. If he declines, there's not a lot Congress can do (other than authorizing someone to physically arrest them -- which would certainly be construed as over-reaching)

So, if they defy the subpoenas, I think the worst thing that could happen to the Administration is pressure and political embarassment.

jdw wrote on March 22, 2007 12:30 PM:

Arlen is really starting to look long of teeth and slowing down, which is the case of far too many of the Sens on both sides of the aisle.

It's nice to see Pat be really pissed off. These guys really need to start growing their gonads back after the last six years.

John

Dennis wrote on March 22, 2007 12:39 PM:

Thanks, Ron. My mistake; Alberto, not "Roberto".

I agree with others that there is more to this than what's on the surface and that there are other senators involved and maybe even bigger issues that this visible issue is a small part of.

I don't like getting out on a limb about conspiracy theories, but there's no doubt in my mind that an attempted coup of some sort by the Bush administration and others (congressional members) to circumvent our congressional system has taken place.

Let's just hope the democrats don't cave.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Arkansan wrote on March 22, 2007 12:43 PM:

If they defy the subpoenas, the timing might be right to bead the drum for Articles of Impeachment against Gonzales. The perjury count alone would be a great place to start. It seems that would be the last weapon in the Democratic arsenal.

Things are changing; a Republican Kool-Aid drinker went on the record in favor of the subpoenas in the senate today. The very least that division demonstrates is that the WH can’t count on the Republicans as a block, it could mean more.

powkat wrote on March 22, 2007 1:07 PM:

My ex-mother-in-law bullied two husbands and all her children. When she tried with me I said, 'No.' and she caved. Bullies only succeed if you let them.

The Dems need to stand firm on this - and I don't think the DC USA would refuse to prosecute; unless of course he or she is a kool-aid drinker. Even then, the pressure to go forward would be immense.

nofltwlt wrote on March 22, 2007 1:07 PM:

If the senate accepts the non-proposal by the WH it would mean the WH staff don't even need to show up.

Tom wrote on March 22, 2007 1:17 PM:

If they want to testify in secret and without a record and not under oath, maybe they should be sent to Guantanamo where the type of questioning Bush likes is used.

5fthighnrisin wrote on March 22, 2007 1:22 PM:

Here's a guess on the WH's bargaining tactics:
"Drop the subpoenas and we'll drop Gonzales. Deal?"

bohdi wrote on March 22, 2007 1:49 PM:

Attention all. The missing emails in the infamous 3 week gap are to be found at 5321 Riggs Road in Olney,Maryland. A Federal Support Center, same place where 250 missing emails from Plame Affair were stashed before tipoff and discovery in 03'. This according to a leaker on the inside who knows procedure. This report comes off WayneMadsenReport.com this morning. Someone should get all over this pronto before the stash site is moved. Will require search warrant according to Madsen.

mritter4u wrote on March 22, 2007 1:50 PM:

Anarchy in DC!
Bush won't cave.
Cong. won't cave.
Gonzo will go.
Cheney croaks.
Gore announces, (yea)
but finally, the Brown Shirts are on the run!

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:00 PM:

Go get 'em, you mean ol' dogs!

rlogan wrote on March 22, 2007 2:26 PM:

The bombs will rain down on Iran in a scope that President Cheney feels is sufficient to play the "war emergency" card.

"Sorry, we're too busy committing war crimes to answer for domestic crimes in the Department of Obstruction of Justice".

Mellifluous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

kentuck: "Could it be that several Senators are tied up in this US Atty scandal also? "

We know of Domenici, for sure.

Ah! "snake".

Eric Rumsey wrote on March 22, 2007 3:21 PM:

Reading many and blazing through the rest of these posts I am amazed at the total ignorance of those who have posted here. It's a feeding frenzy about NOTHING. President Bush & ALBERTO Gonzoles
did nothing wrong! There is no scandal. There is nothing to cover up. The president is head of the executive branch, of which The Department of
Justice is part. All these prosecuters work for the president. He can fire them without any reason or for whatever reason he wants to. So after the beginning of his second term he fired a lousy eight out of ninety some. Big deal, so what, who cares! This is a witch hunt in a monastery. President Bush isn't going to allow his people to be subpenaed by Pat Leahy. Ever heard of separation of powers? I thought you liberals were going to end the war in Iraq? How's that coming? What is it you have done since being in control of the Congress? Hold get George Bush hearings, get Karl Rove hearings. You really are pathetic.

nigger tits wrote on March 22, 2007 3:28 PM:

Christ you'd think that a crime was committed. Liberals have no respect for separation of powers. Let's see Bush subpoena one of these idiots and ask about their hiring and firing of staffers.

Also, manbearpig is real.

Yawn wrote on March 22, 2007 3:40 PM:

I was wondering when the trolls would come out of their hiding places. Apparently, after being there for six years, they forgot what a really Congress acts like when they deliberate over decisions executed by the executive branch. Oversight is the constitution duty of the legislative branch. I thought after the Clinton years, you trolls would recognize it for what it is. So, please, take off your red-tinted glasses and recognize the beauty of the democratic (not Democratic) process in action

David wrote on March 22, 2007 3:48 PM:

Eric and "tits" - Please understand that one of the perils of being an Emperor is that "the people" are always getting in the way.

Separation of powers was dreamed up by James Madison and others to preclude a monarchy emerging in our noble experiment. It's really a healthy thing for each partition of our government to understand that it's like a three-legged stool: saw off one leg and it supports nothing, falls over. Keep the branches (legs) rather even and it make for a stability - something we all could use about now.

shrubst wrote on March 22, 2007 3:58 PM:

eric and tits....right from Rush's lips to our ears.

try giving this a think using YOUR brain.

nigger tits wrote on March 22, 2007 4:08 PM:

shrubst - do you have anything to offer to the discussion? What is your opinion of this situation? Were any laws broken?

shrubsy wrote on March 22, 2007 4:10 PM:

another thing that is becoming more apparent to me...although I cannot claim any experience whatsoever in political career-jockeying....

is how much of this is just people going after federally juiced jobs. If there is one thing these ratfu&*ckers did well, was to infiltrate and systematically usurp every single federal and state job. We have major water polluters running clean water agencies. Coal plant owners running clean air agencies. Big Finance jerks running the SEC and chief of staff to the WH. Christian wingnuts running NASA. They redact every document, spin every report. Chisel every number, cook all the books. Just because the cloak and mask are off the Reptilian Party doesn't mean careerism and elbow throwing are off the table. Judgeships and the courts are one great way for the repukelickin party to maintain their power and keep riggin' the rules, even if no-one votes for a ReThug congressman for 30 years. SO all these folks are cherrypicking who goes where and pads resumes, who's boy get's what job, and stacking the courts with loyal goosesteppers.

The truly scary thing, if you weren't paying attention these last 6 yrs, is how much ballplaying and loyal bushie crap must have been happening that hasn't seen the light of day. The only reason the USAATT came to light was how the bushies peed on the firing victims. If they would have hushed it up proper, it would have floated out to sea. But they had to twist the knife (maybe to show others what happens if you don't play ball).

David wrote on March 22, 2007 4:11 PM:

Pardon the intrusion on the tits and shrubst track, but isn't evidence under oath how one determines which laws(s) got abused?

OxyCon wrote on March 22, 2007 4:26 PM:

When the Bushies say "We need to get good advice form our advisers, so we will not let them testify under oath", I wonder just what kind of advice you get from a political hack like Karl Rove.
Seriously. All Karl Rove is, is a political hack. That point is not debatable. Everyone knows his job is to be a political hack, and that is his sole role. So just what kind of confidential advice does a President get from a political hack? And why is this advice considered a state secret, or so profound that if Rove testifies under oath, he'd no longer be able to give Bush good advice?

nigger tits wrote on March 22, 2007 4:30 PM:

Since when does being under oath mean anything to a democrat?

As far as Rove being a political "hack". Uhhh, yeah. That's a real astute observation. Are you so naive that you don't think democrats have the exact same thing?

TrollBuster wrote on March 22, 2007 4:32 PM:

To the lovely and vivacious "nigger tits" -- your choice of handles completely negates anything you might have to say.

But I'll bite, and I'll turn your question back to you: if the tables were turned, if the Democrats had been in control of all 3 branches for the past 6 years, and if, just before the last election, 8 USAs were working hard building a case against rampant Democratic corruption and voter fraud schemes, and were summarily fired, citing "performance reasons", by the Democratic AG at the order of the Democratic president's top advisor,

would you still say "no crime has been committed?"

That's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

nigger tits wrote on March 22, 2007 4:43 PM:

Name the crime! What crime was there? Besides, the tables WERE turned, as Clinton fired many of his!

(Interesting that you need to find a reason that "negates anything I have to say". You're a smart liberal, just debate and stop looking down your elitist nose at people)

steve talbert wrote on March 22, 2007 4:52 PM:

it's still amazes me how really ignorant some people are to not see how this action by the Executive Branch is close enough to being unconstitutional on its face that it deserves a good look. I guess there is a reason dictators stay in power. A lot of people are too dumb to really know any better.

phil james wrote on March 22, 2007 4:54 PM:

From the committee vote: Specter urged the committee to "make a counterproposal to the White House" instead of authorizing subpoenas. "I counsel my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to work hard to find a way to avoid an impasse here," he said. "We don't need a constitutional confrontation."

Disagree. I think a constitutional confrontation is exactly what is needed...or rather a confrontation between Congress and Dubya about whether in fact there is a constitution, whether it governs both the Congress and the Executive Branch, whether they are co-equal branches, whether Congress has oversight reponsibilities and authorities, whether the executive's responsibility is to uphold the law (as written by Congress and interpreted by the Courts) and the constitution, and whether his duty is to the people of the United States and not to his notion of a unitary executive who once elected becomes a power unto himself........you know, just a gentle reminder.

es wrote on March 22, 2007 4:55 PM:

Forgive my lack of true legal knowledge, this is as much as question as an argument:

Is it not a crime to fire a USA because you don't like the direction an investigation or case is going (i.e. would this constitute something of obstruction of justice, etc.)?

As was previously noted, this is why testimony under oath is so important: to determine whether such a thing occurred.

powkat wrote on March 22, 2007 5:02 PM:

Josh and Paul - can you either ban the poster named 'n****r t*ts' or make him change his name? I can't be the only one who finds this incredibly offensive.

lestatdelc wrote on March 22, 2007 5:03 PM:

n-tits

Lying before Congress is a crime. I'll put it in terms you Fright-Winger dip-shits can comprehend. It wasn't the blow-job, it was lying about it.

Same thing about lying to Congress (and the public).. which Gonzales and crew did about why US Attorney's were fired, which seems to be for their NOT playing politics with prosecutions which is what the White House and GOP Congress people wanted (i.e. go after Democrats on bogus "vote fraud" and back off of actual criminal activities by Cunningham and crew).

On another note, up-thread... WayneMadsenReport.com is about as credible as citing the Midnight Globe or the National Inquirer.

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 5:07 PM:

Awww, it's offensive. How about one even more offensive, from the column of a liberal.

As to the "crime" - you "people" are really stretching on this one.Nothing will come of it, and next month you'll manufacture a new bs scandal. How's that troop withdrawal going for you, btw?

phil james wrote on March 22, 2007 5:16 PM:

Josh and Paul

Agree with powkat on the handle. I assume there are some standards you guys apply in these circumstances.

phil james wrote on March 22, 2007 5:18 PM:

Josh and Paul

Can a commenter also be barred for being a flaming jerk?

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 5:24 PM:

"Josh and Paul

Can a commenter also be barred for being a flaming jerk?
Posted by: phil james"

Wow. You are really a whiner. How do you make it through life? Do you cry a lot? What do you do in situations where you can't silence someone you don't like?

Pompano Pete wrote on March 22, 2007 5:29 PM:

There is concern here that "the public" will not understand because of the complexity of the alleged actions.

How well I remember that Watergate was a "third rate burglary", and the "silent majority" who loved Nixon would soon lose interest. And with Nixon enjoying approval ratings in the high 60's, it appeared the real insiders might be right. Funny how it didn't work out that way.

There are plenty of fine people out there, conservatives even, who will explain what this mess is all about and why it is so important.

Have faith, but check that your passport is up to date in case the American public is really as lethargic and stupid as some of you believe.

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 5:34 PM:

Well we'll see. Watergate was media-driven. Imagine that, media telling people what to think about! Of course people will start to believe it's a big deal - the press will NOT shut up about it. Same with watergate - hearings on tv 24/7, people will eventually cave.

phil james wrote on March 22, 2007 5:46 PM:

I have magic negro voodoo doll that I stick pins in and the convulsions usually put the flaming jerk in the hospital

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 5:52 PM:

Well, I hope I don't get put on life support, as we all know how much life is worth to a liberal!

cfaller96 wrote on March 22, 2007 6:03 PM:

OMG, are Freepers starting to run around liberal blogging sites? After looking at comments from (presumably) newcomer(s) n***tits and magic n**ro, I have to ask:

Is it just not fun anymore drinking the "Bush is the greatest President evah!" Koolaid? Or has it just worn off?

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 6:12 PM:

I don't like GW Bush, but my dislike for liberal policies is greater. Magic negro is a term referenced in a liberal op ed, but I guess that may have sailed over your sloped brow?

cfaller96 wrote on March 22, 2007 6:19 PM:

Um, yes. And wow. But you're the same commenter as n***tits, correct? Oh, and just out of curiosity, you don't frequent Little Green Footballs, do you?

Go get another cup of KoolAid. It'll be ok, I promise...

g.m. wrote on March 22, 2007 7:02 PM:

I don't usually feed trolls. But it's worth answering Eric's and Magic N's questions directly: • Carol Lam was fired after putting Republican Congressman Duke Cunnigham in jail. Her investigation was expanding to another Republican congressman, Jerry Lewis, and to the #3 guy in the CIA, Dusty Foggo.
Bush is allowed to fire the U.S. Attorneys *for policy reasons*, yes. But *if* Lam was fired so she could not complete her investigations into Lews & Foggo, that would quallify as obstruction of justice, which is very definitely *not* legal.

In New Mexico, David Iglesias was fired for not prosecuting voter fraud cases for the very good reason that there actually was no voter fraud. Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Dominici called to inquire about the investigation, and are on record as being "disappointed" with the results. Iglesias was fired shortly thereafter. That's "obstructing, influencing, or impeding" any official investigation--18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c).

And of course, Gonzales saying "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”
Barely believable at this point. That's lying to Congress.

Here's a more in-depth explanation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/
19mon4.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBush%2c%20George%20W%2e&oref=slogin

Those are the crimes we know about. Given the accumulated evidence, and the 18-day e-mail gap, you'd have to be in willful denial of reality to try to think there's *nothing* there.

It is possible the scandal does not extend to Bush, but even you guys have to admit there's a considerable amount of evidence building against Gonzales, others in the Justice Dept., and Wilson, Domenici, & Lewis.

TPMmuckraker doesn't usually get trolls (discouraging political news bringing you out of the woodwork?), but hey, stick around guys, you might learn something.

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 7:30 PM:

Were you as adamant in your pursuit for justice when clinton fired an attorney investigating him? Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintons made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say `Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is.

Besides, You'll never get GW. Gonzo will take the fall if he has to.

WonkWarrior wrote on March 22, 2007 8:11 PM:

To MN--Seriously, do some research before revealing your ignorance. You just keep repeating tired administration talking points. Even some of the president's men can't repeat the rhetoric with a straight face.
What you fail to grasp is that US Attorneys, unlike judges who serve for life, serve at the pleasure of the President and, as history indisputably shows, meaning for the duration of the term of the President *who appointed them* which is why Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush appointed new US Attorneys after they were sworn. If you cannot get your mind around this concept along with the concept that it is wrong and an obstruction of justice to fire prosecutors either because they prosecuted your buddies or didnt prosecuted your political enemies, you really need to go back to school.

magic negro wrote on March 22, 2007 9:10 PM:

Again, clinton got rid of an attorney investigating him - Exactly what you accuse bush of doing. No crimes were committed here.

David wrote on March 22, 2007 9:31 PM:

Obstruction of justice by acts of destruction of Justice (USA's) is wrong at any time. If there was more on Clinton than his dangling particles, then why did not that House and Senate go after it? What's so worng for tesitmony to be always under oath?

WonkWarrior wrote on March 22, 2007 10:13 PM:

C'Mon MN, is that the best you can do? If that were true it surely would have been investigated to death during the six years Rs controlled the Senate and in the multiple independent counsel investigations Reno allowed to go forward. But, wait, you might not remember that concept--the idea of a prosecutor independent of the administration and unremovable by the administration to invest claims of corruption. Gonzales has repeatedly refused to appoint special counsels authorized under DOJ regs and helped block an internal investigation into the illegal warrantless wiretapping he helped authorize. And, the only quasi-special counsel appointed in the past six years is Patrick Fitzgerald and only because Jim Comey was on deck as Deputy and Acting AG at DOJ for a nano-second before he got pushed out for allowing such an appointment of Libby (and Rove and Cheney's) illegal conduct and for daring to object to the blatant violation of FISA. You're not very magic, although you sound pretty desperate to try to make the facts go away....

erbs wrote on March 22, 2007 10:59 PM:

Ignore the trolls.
They want you to waste your energy arguing instead of investigating.
Keep digging. You're doing good.

witney@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:28 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

witney@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:29 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

witney@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:29 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

blue@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 7:46 PM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:11 AM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:11 AM:

hello

download music video wrote on September 25, 2007 8:42 PM:

Hi boys!e0ee41654acff15dd42138ab6fdd395d

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:54 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night